Future of the Group - Revision history

Mclare at 15:08, 25 September 2024

2024-09-25T15:08:57Z

Gforsythe at 17:54, 15 August 2008

2008-08-15T17:54:23Z

Gforsythe at 17:48, 15 August 2008

2008-08-15T17:48:38Z

Gforsythe at 17:13, 15 August 2008

2008-08-15T17:13:11Z

Gforsythe at 16:51, 15 August 2008

2008-08-15T16:51:34Z

Gforsythe: New page: Read [http://www.cou.on.ca/content/objects/ACWorkingPaper-ParticipatoryTechnologies-FINAL.pdf.pdf' COU paper] Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED? Linda: we could be a subgro...

2008-08-15T16:51:15Z

New page: *Read [http://www.cou.on.ca/content/objects/ACWorkingPaper-ParticipatoryTechnologies-FINAL.pdf.pdf' COU paper] *Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED? Linda: we could be a subgro...

New page

*Read [http://www.cou.on.ca/content/objects/ACWorkingPaper-ParticipatoryTechnologies-FINAL.pdf.pdf' COU paper]
*Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED?

Linda: we could be a subgroup or intermeshed; a number of ways and many pro's and con's

CON's
-little sister to the group
-if we meet as one unit, may not be interesting to the larger group
-curriculum issues may not be a perfect fit
-we could work with that if we were to meet in a larger group and then come back and report what we found

Sandy:
-potential for gain not so much risk; not too much to lose
-might the gov look to groups for funding

Andrew:
-what do we have to lose?

Richard:
-there is a sentiment that we are different than the T&L; may have difficulty convincing the group; work through the skepticism getting a voice heard through to the COU
-there are a whole set of concerns and issues that the COU will have to listen to
-we fall between the pedagogy and the technology; kind of the glue

Karen:
-without trying to underestimate the value of COU affiliate status
-there is no fear certainly in COU in telling us what we are interested in
-OCAV reports to COU, other groups report to OCAV
-they like an update, and an opportunity to have a presence at your meeting
-in terms of knowing that having them understanding that "we are the experts" in the area
-it has been in no way controlling

Richard:
-might not spend time working out the constitional relationship

Aldo:
-one model could be that we get recognized as an advisory group to the affiliate
-we have members that participate in meetings or act as liaisons
-there is that recognition
-if there is an issue that COED is dealing with, perhaps we could be the "go to" group
-I think there is that recognition by the affiliate

Richard:
-Bill said he'd like the COU to recognize us as a group to seek consultation from
-we may have a bit of work to do to have us be recognized as that group
-think about the governance model of other groups we are involved in; fee, membership, etc.
-if we want to formally

Trevor:
-I wouldn't want to have this group 3rd removed from COU
-If COU itself wants to deal directly with this institute and have some back and forth

Richard:
-we need to follow up on the paper; how serious it is

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 25 September 2024
Line 179:		Line 179:

	Conclusion: Trevor and Richard will draft a letter to COED, OUCEL and OCAV. Sooner than later is better, to be able to inform the letter and the constitution.		Conclusion: Trevor and Richard will draft a letter to COED, OUCEL and OCAV. Sooner than later is better, to be able to inform the letter and the constitution.
		+	[[Category:OUCeL]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 15 August 2008
Line 177:		Line 177:
	Sandy:		Sandy:
	-the letter, COED vs OCAV		-the letter, COED vs OCAV
		+
		+	Conclusion: Trevor and Richard will draft a letter to COED, OUCEL and OCAV. Sooner than later is better, to be able to inform the letter and the constitution.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-*Read [http://www.cou.on.ca COU paper]
+*Read [http://www.cou.on.ca COU paper] Working Paper: The Challenge of Participatory Technologies for Teaching and Learning at Ontario Universities
 *Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED?
@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 Trevor:
 -funding has been more for projects

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 15 August 2008
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Richard:		Richard:
	-we need to follow up on the paper; how serious it is		-we need to follow up on the paper; how serious it is
		+
		+	Jeanne:
		+	-they put out this paper without any heads up or consultation
		+	-can going out on our own is somewhere that we have any clout
		+
		+	Richard:
		+	-two people were commissioned to make a report
		+	-"unofficially pulled together"
		+	-we were flagged as potential players
		+
		+	Sandy:
		+	-have we really identified what we really are about
		+	-learning and sharing has been the best part
		+	-why can't we meet as a group and still have some sort of recognition within the affiliate
		+
		+	Andrew:
		+	-the informal working relationships are really useful
		+	-three bullets added:
		+	-software, hardware, knowledge sharing
		+	-e-portfolio solutions, evaluating solutions together
		+	-informally within our own groups
		+	-existing models within existing organizations
		+	-consortium software buying
		+	-there was some success in some areas, requires some effort
		+
		+	Richard:
		+	-we should continue to meet informal
		+
		+	Sandy:
		+	-IDO group has a TA Group
		+	-we could still be that way
		+	-especially since we have such a focus on pedagogy
		+
		+
		+	Richard:
		+	-we may not have the space to articulate our needs
		+	-do we want to define ourselves within a group or separately as a group
		+
		+	Aldo:
		+	-how much effort is required
		+	-if there are challenges, too much negotiation
		+	-could extend a proposal
		+
		+	Trevor:
		+	-initial there was a group of TA developers, became Canada-wide, then international
		+	-with the TA developers may want to have a voice; many of the people are the same, but as centres grow, but this grows
		+	-for example, grad student training- COU would go to COED
		+	-OCAV and COU looking for participatory learning input do they go to the elearning group, or do we go to COED
		+
		+	Karen:
		+	-we have been going through consitutional streamlining, what does it mean to be an affiliate
		+	-COU has added in, "reporting to OCAV", being available to consult with OCAV at request
		+
		+	Richard:
		+	-what's in it for COED
		+
		+	Trevor:
		+	-deeper impact, having access to academic leadership; advice giving function is more clear; & funding
		+	-e.g. curriculum processes; uses of tools;
		+
		+	Aldo:
		+	-having a greater influence and impact at home institutions; however, a lot of what we do is governed by CIOs; certainly we want to influence pedagogy but need to be able to lobby the technology aspect
		+
		+	Trevor:
		+	-there isn't any reason that an affiliate with OCAV isn't also an affiliate somewhere else
		+
		+	Jeanne:
		+	-weren't they going to support the summer institute
		+
		+	Trevor:
		+	-funding has been more for projects

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 15 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	*Read [http://www.cou.on.ca~~/content/objects/ACWorkingPaper-ParticipatoryTechnologies-FINAL.pdf.pdf'~~ COU paper]	+	*Read [http://www.cou.on.ca COU paper]
	*Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED?		*Do we want to be a part of the affiliate, COED?